Holy mother of dragons ... do you kiddies know what?  I have a vague recollection ... but I think I actually saw this one in theaters when it originally premiered in the United States!

Dear God!

And -- if memory serves -- I believe I rather appropriately dubbed it 'The Crappening' to friends and family who asked about it.

Sigh.

1986's Highlander remains one of the most beloved cult films of all time, and I suppose that there's nothing wrong with that.  It has its own benign charm, and it certainly has had an incredible number of home video releases over the years that I think generations will be able to discover it for the next century.  But, alas, Highlander II: The Quickening was a bit awful, a bit confusing, and a bit uninspired, to say the least.  Yes, yes, yes, I'm aware that it's been tinkered with over the years as well, and the home video market has enjoyed a couple of different versions of the film's original story ... but if a plot lends itself to being so easily recreated in an entirely different iteration, then it is truly a tale deserving to stand on its own two feet ... without its head being decapitated?

Directed by Russell Mulcahy, the SciFi/Fantasy starred Christopher Lambert and Sean Connery returning to the roles they made famous in the original.  They were joined by the ever-luminous Virginia Madsen (be still my heart), genre legend Michael Ironside, and funnyman John C. McGinley in some big, big roles.  Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:

"In the future, Highlander Connor MacLeod must prevent the destruction of Earth under an anti-ozone shield."

Now, mark my words: it isn't as if I think that the whole Highlander idea is a bad one because it's not.  Highlander II -- as awful as it might be -- certainly didn't spell the end to this ongoing battle of the Immortals all vying to -- in the end -- be the last man standing.  In fact, the 1990's were very good to the Highlander as I think that there were two series associated to it, a few more films, and then even a few more films based off of that series.  Wasn't there even a short-lived animated program?  I could be wrong on that one, but I think that there was.  I'll Google it when I have time.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ
​

Back in my college days, I read a great deal about the works of the revered Orson Welles.
 
See, I was raised in an era wherein his Citizen Kane (1941) was the cinematic benchmark of record.  (It still is, so far as this old mind is concerned.)  Fascinated with the film, I rather ravenously read anything I could get my hands on, including sources the college library could borrow via some intra-institution network.  (This was well before the days of the internet, young readers.)  In fact, almost any opportunity I had to write a paper for whatever the class, I tried to make it about some element of Kane.  I dissected the picture from almost every angle I could, and I even hosted a screening of it (alongside a faculty cosponsor) for students, professors, and the community.  (Yes, it had a respectable turnout even for a small Midwestern town.)  Though I don’t consider myself an expert in any regard, I will concede that I know more than your average bear.
 
So it was very natural for me to begin to dig deeper into the filmmaker’s other works, and the one that was almost always recommended to me for study was 1947’s The Lady From Shanghai.  It certainly came up an awful lot in my reading, and – when I finally sat through it – I could understand and appreciate why, though I disagreed with those who felt it was as fulfilling a feast as was Kane.  Unlike the Welles’ debut, Shanghai felt more than a bit incomplete in places, if not even a bit of a step backward as to how much he had pioneered a new way of storytelling in the 1941 feature.  Much of this is owed, I believe, to the fact that the filmmaker never finished the project as he intended, leaving the end result an occasionally cock-eyed masterpiece in search of all its parts.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the product packaging:
“Hired to work on a yacht belonging to the disabled husband of femme fatale Rita Hayworth, Welles plays an innocent man drawn into a dangerous web of intrigue and murder.”
 
Let it be known: there has been a great deal written about The Lady From Shanghai.
 
Quite frankly, there’s been so much written that it grows difficult to even attempt summarizing the whole affair briefly, so let’s just understand that the film – before, during, and after its production – has been the subject of great controversy.  Its conception alone is a topic that defies a conventional explanation, and – given the fact that its two stars (Welles and Hayworth) were in the midst of a tumultuous marital separation at the time of its making – I doubt that we’ll ever truly know the bottom line of what its true potential was: the first cut clocked in at an incredible 150 minutes while the finished product runs a mere 88 minutes.  What was lost?  Like I said, we’ll never really know.
 
So … setting aside all of that fodder, we’re left with a film that both resembles other film noirs of its day but has a bit something extra, that being some of the screen’s more dazzling visuals as provided by the master himself, Orson Welles.  The storyteller had his own unique style, much of which has been historically tied to the use of deep focus photography, allowing the director to cram an awful lot of substance (i.e. nuance and subtext) into each and every frame.  In my opinion, none of it here quite approaches the level he achieved with Citizen Kane (1941) – a bravura performance on every conceivable level – and that’s likely owed in part to the fact that Shanghai was taken away from the director and given over to another editor in post.  As a result, whatever spell Welles ultimately hoped to weave here likely never made it to the screen or only survives in unconnected pieces.
 
Considering what we’re left with, Shanghai only occasionally achieves a level of effective storytelling, instead leaving an awful lot to be desired.
​

For instance, our central hero/antihero Michael O’Hara (played by Welles) vacillates between a thoughtful braggard and an outright bully, never quite emerging as a force viewers might follow on this dark journey of deceit.  In Welles’ hands, O’Hara is still probably the most quotable seaman since Hemingway.  Femme fatale Elsa Bannister (Rita Hayworth) hints at a dark past – one that surprisingly got past film censors of the day – but clearly might’ve been more involved in her present day as Shanghai’s ending suggests she had access to a somewhat larger criminal enterprise possibly involving some of San Francisco’s Chinatown.  She’s obviously a force to be reckoned with, but Welles’ script (as presented) never clearly spells out the necessary particulars.  Arthur Bannister (Everett Sloane) is one part man and two parts legal mastermind whose power over others appears to take the shape of his operating outside the law.  (Blackmail is mentioned twice, I believe, but I could be wrong.)  Yet, whatever illicit secrets he keeps we’re never privy to, giving the character a less authentic feel than I would’ve liked.  And George Grisby (Glenn Anders) inhabits one of filmdom’s creepiest lawyers on celluloid, delivering scene after scene highlighted by some of the strangest lines and off-kilter proselytizing of screen record.  It’s a gem of a performance in a flick that should’ve made more sense.
 
At its core, I suspect that Welles intended for Shanghai to be an observation on the evil that exists between a certain caste of people, and that’s my only honest guess.  While O’Hara is far from squeaky clean (his past suggests more than a few run-ins with authority as well as his fellow man), there’s still a bit of an everyman quality to him, one who functions from a foundation of ‘don’t wrong me, and I won’t wrong you.’  He’s dragged against his best judgment into this skullduggery via his own shortcomings with physical lust, and – like those he inevitably serves, observes, and ultimately defies – he’s shackled with consequences as a result of his participation.  He’ll spend the remainder of his days recalling his part in the sordid affair – a fair cost for his momentary weakness – but the true instigators punched their tickets with the exchange of their mortal souls, a heavier price indeed.
 
Lastly, I’d be remiss in my duties in this space if I failed to mention that, in 2018, the U.S.’s National Film Preservation Board inducted Shanghai into the National Film Registry.  For those unawares, the Registry selects twenty-five pictures each year to add to its vaults seeking to preserve features that have shown historical, cultural, and aesthetic contribution to the medium.  Such an induction certainly underscores the relevance of the completed product: I just wish that, additively, the picture made a bit more sense.
 
The Lady From Shanghai (1947) was produced by Mercury Productions.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated by the good people at Kino Lorber.  As for the technical specifications?  Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought the sights and sound of this black-and-white classic were fabulous from start-to-finish.  As for the special features?  The disc boast an incredible three commentary tracks (film historian Imogen Sara Smith, critic Tim Lucas, and filmmaker Peter Bogdanovich all dissect the picture and, frankly, there’s a great deal of overlap), some extra observations by Bogdanovich and film noir historian Eddie Muller, and the theatrical trailer.  So – yes – there’s a great deal of information available that should keep fans interested for hours.
 
Highly recommended.
 
As imperfect as it is, The Lady From Shanghai is one of the motion pictures that’s gloriously imperfect, offering up ample opportunity to sit and watch the genius of Orson Welles at work, even when his trickery might be at the expense of a functional narrative.  Alas, film noirs have rarely made perfect sense, so don’t look for this film’s storyline and characters to add up to anything more than a crew of mismatched strangers coming together and falling apart between the rise of action until the credits roll.  Gloriously imperfect?  Why, that’s likely a phrase even Orson would approve …
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Kino Lorber provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of The Lady From Shanghai (1947) by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

I think there's a bit of wisdom in thinking and writing about film, but it escapes you entirely until you come to the realization that not every picture is intended for your liking or disliking.  Each has to be 'measured' on its own merits, ignoring some of one's preconceived notions about what makes a story compelling as well as what makes a journey worthwhile.  That's not always an easy thing because -- after all -- we're all human, so it can be challenging to disconnect from some of what you know and believe in order to give each flick its own space in your head.

​For example, regular readers here know that I have my issues with what I'd argue is the overuse of CGI in filmdom.  I'm not picking on any feature when I suggest that storytellers -- those who can afford the really, really good CGI -- have come to rely on it a bit too heavily in delivering cinematic flair for those in the audience; but such trickery is really the province of an all new generation of viewers.  Heck, whole films get assembled in post-production these days, so those of us who prefer the more practical approaches over videogame trickery are, sadly, a dying breed.

Sigh.  It sucks getting old, folks.  Get used to it.

​In any event, I first watched Alita: Battle Angel on cable, and this was during a bit of online promotion wherein the franchise's more ardent fans were claiming this was the Second Coming of cinema.  I'm pretty good at ignoring that hyperbole -- the film is very good, despite an occasionally predictable script (in part) from Hollywood's legendary wizard James Cameron, but it ain't Casablanca, folks -- but such campaigns do have a habit of pushing my buttons to the negative.  Were I a few decades younger, then maybe I could've better understood the fanfare a bit more; but I will say that where I agreed with their screaming lot is that I think Alita was, perhaps, one of the best examples that tapped into the potential of anime with a live action construct.

(Yes, yes, yes: I'm aware that rendering most of a film in CGI kinda/sorta defeats the 'live action construct,' but methinks you get my point.)

The Japan animation scene isn't for everything, mind you, and that's mostly because it has its own style, pace, and general storytelling sensibilities.  Alita -- with all of its strengths and weaknesses -- might be one of the first Western films that successfully embraced a lot of those and delivered something audiences worldwide could both understand, relate to, and cheer.  That's the trick, you know: a project has to come together in such a way as to garner fans around the globe in order to be a legitimate phenomenon ... otherwise it'll never quite transcend a cult appeal and become a bit more conventional.

Still, even someone -- let's say the average moviegoer -- who hasn't watched so much as an hour of Star Wars or Star Trek know of those franchises' existence.  It's very likely that those folks have heard of Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, Captain Kirk, and Mr. Spock.  The same cannot be said of Alita, and I'm thinking it'll take much more than a single adventure up in the lights to truly give that Battle Angel the legs -- cybernetic or not -- she needs to join the growing legion of genre heroes who do great service on the silver screen.  I don't say that as an insult; it's just the reality of where this possible franchise stands in its current state.

I'm all in for another one.  Now that Cameron and director Robert Rodriguez have dispensed with an origins picture the real battle can begin.

Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:

​"A deactivated cyborg's revived, but can't remember anything of her past and goes on a quest to find out who she is."

Much like Joss Whedon's Firefly franchise, Alita has an incredible support system of fans and enthusiasts online that are constantly (and I do mean constantly) singing her praises, and that's great.  Hopefully they'll keep banging on that drum at each and every opportunity.  The feature's box office receipts were likely not as high as the producers had hoped, but who among us hasn't rooted for the underdog on more than a single occasion?  If the stars properly align, Alita's time will come -- either in the form of a sequel or maybe even a limited series on some streaming platform -- and those fans will cheer its continuation ... as well they should.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ
​

Truth be told: I fell in love with Lucy Griffiths many moons ago.

Back in the day, she put in some solid period and genre work as 'Maid Marian' aboard the BBC’s occasionally campy Robin Hood (2006-2009).  A few years later, she turned up aboard HBO’s True Blood, though her character – Nora Gainsborough – was sadly relegated to second-tier status, essentially a supporting player to Alexander Skarsgård’s Eric Northman.  So I was delighted to discover her as one of the leads aboard 2015’s Uncanny, a clever and thought-provoking SciFi potboiler that deserves to find an audience as big as its ideas.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last three paragraphs for my final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the product packaging:
“For ten years, inventor David Kressen has lived in seclusion with his inventions, including Adam, a robot with incredible lifelike human qualities.  When reporter Joy Andrews is given access to their unconventional facility, she is alternately repelled and attracted to the scientist and his creation.  But as Adam exhibits emergent behavior of anger and jealousy towards her, she finds herself increasingly entangled in a web of deception where no one’s motives are easily decipherable.”
 
Readers are quick to lambast me for taking more than a few words to tell you what I thought of a new release, so I’ll try to keep all of this as simple and sweet as possible, tying that in with my affection for the simple and sweet Lucy Griffiths.  She’s at times subtle, at times luminescent in this star-crossed triangle where woman meets man and machine.  In ways, it’s a mildly predictable tale – anytime testosterone edges out the estrogen there’s bound to be a conflict – but it’s still nonetheless ably delivered and smartly performed by Griffiths and her co-stars, Mark Webber and David Clayton Rogers.
 
Andrews (Griffiths) meets this cybernetically-inclined Odd Couple, and sparks don’t exactly fly.  Because she’s established her credentials in the publishing industry as the ‘go-to’ gal for most things robotics, she’s naturally intrigued by what she learns Dr. Kressen (Webber) has achieved in the comfort and privacy of his own home/lab/condo: the all-too-obviously-named Adam (Rogers) might just be the real deal – the first walking, talking, fully humanoid Artificial Intelligence … suddenly starts to veer into creepy territory when Adam begins exhibiting some inclinations both ‘hot’ and ‘bothered’ for our lady Andrews.

​(Wink/wink: can’t say that I blame ‘im!)
​

From there, Shahin Chandrasoma’s smart script traffics in some far more conventional and bubbly territory (“Do androids dream wet dreams?”) as Adam’s fatal attraction starts to look more Demon Seed (1977) than it does Short Circuit (1986).  Sequences show him in his private time exploring live porn on the internet, and he even manages to cleverly position a webcam (of sorts) in Joy’s apartment, a development that earns both the android and audiences the welcome turn at Joy’s partial butt crack.  (The things a robot does for love!)  From there, his obsession grows, but – as cruel plot subroutines would have it – the reporter is drawn to the inventor’s more stoic and subtler genius (Webber is full-on channeling The Big Bang Theory's Jim Parsons at this point), and this is where Uncanny draws much of its uncanniness for its final act.
 
Like many SciFi thrillers that have come before have done, Uncanny's story relies on a narrative sleight of hand (things are decidedly NOT what they seem, kinda/sorta in that ol’ M. Night Shyamalan way of motion picture storytelling), and no doubt viewers might notice some of Chandrasoma and director Leutwyler’s more obvious misdirections (I won’t spoil it).  This certainly isn’t a perfect potboiler, but I’d argue it was never entirely meant to be: instead, Uncanny finishes as it starts, always being more about the human condition that it ever truly was anything robotic … and that may be the harshest lesson for both man and machine of all.
 
Granted, this is the kind of film that nerds, geeks, and general SciFi enthusiasts will have a blast with (with, as a said, some reservations for its more ‘soapy’ elements); but it’s also the type of feature which might win the genre some crossover appeal: Griffiths and her suitors are all lookers, and Uncanny might just turn out to be one of those unheard-of releases that finds itself the recipient of solid word-of-mouth.
 
Uncanny (2015) is produced by Accelerated Matter, Shoreline Entertainment, Emergent Behavior, Ambush Entertainment, and Uncanny.  DVD distribution is being handled by the reliable RLJ Entertainment and Image Entertainment.  As for the technical specifications?  Director Matthew Leutwyler does an impressive job sighting and sounding the picture, though some of the close-ups seemed a wee bit too high (or too low) and the flick is adorned with those God awful JJ Abrams’ lens flares far too often.  Packaging states that there is closed captioned for the Hearing-Impaired (though there was no specific subtitling track that I could find).  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features, then you have about 10 minutes of deleted scenes (nothing all that grand, so far as I found).
 
Highly recommended.

I’m a SciFi junkie, and that means there are parts of Uncanny that I just couldn’t get enough of – the classic misdirect, the nuanced discussions of artificial intelligence, etc.  Granted, I could’ve done without the JJ Abrams’ lens flare effects constantly peppering the screen and some of the more obvious potboiler elements could’ve been dialed back just a bit … but – in the end – I’m still left with a smart, excellently conceived, and well performed cautionary tale about what’s likely going on psychologically behind-the-scenes in the whole man-versus-machine smackdown.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Image Entertainment and RLJ Entertainment provided me with a DVD of Uncanny by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

For the record, Uncanny is one of those smaller, indie-style features that -- in case you missed it -- you shouldn't be all that surprised.  Sadly, features like this come-and-go across the industry, seeping in and out of DVD release schedules and/or streaming calendars so quickly that it ought to make our collective heads spin.  But unlike so many other pictures, this one deserves a bit of attention if not a smidgeon more reflection.  I've seen it -- I received a complimentary DVD release of it back in the day -- and I'll update my files on SciFiHistory.Net later today -- and I thought it was very interesting, though perhaps a bit predictable in a few spots.

​What I can say about the Shahin Chandrasoma script (without spoiling too much of its -- ahem -- twist ending) is that it probably would've been better served to have had a larger cast, one fleshed out with just a few more characters.  (Yes, yes, yes: I understand all too well that it was kinda/sorta designed to be this intimate three-way relationship between an A.I., its creator, and a lovely reporter.)  The downside to its twist is that -- because the cast is small -- it isn't hard to see certain elements of it coming, so when the reveal takes place it may not have had quite as much dramatic impact as it could have were the characters able to hide it amongst a crowd of players.

Still, there's an efficiency to the picture -- it works 'well enough' to carry the premise and potential from start-to-finish -- and I will say that it's a shame that there hasn't been some follow-up.  It ends with a definite opening to go back into the universe as created (again, trying hard to not spoil it for you, folks), one that suggests there was definitely a bit more to this story.  Who knows?  Maybe all involved are taking a good amount of time to venture back into these waters ... or maybe this is all she wrote, as they say.  I'd be sad, were that the case, as it's ripe for another chapter the way this one winded down.

In any event, here's the film's plot summary as provided by the good people at IMDB.com:

"The world's first 'perfect' Artificial Intelligence begins to exhibit startling and unnerving emergent behavior when a reporter begins a relationship with the scientist who created it."

I'd be remiss in my duties as a Genre Historian if I failed to mention that Uncanny did garner a good amount of praise from screenings on the film festival circuit.  In fact, the big one -- the kind definitely worth mentioning in this space -- is the fact that it captured the 'Best Indie Film' trophy from the 2015 Boston Science Fiction Film Festival, and that definitely might be the number one credential encouraging my readers that it's a product worth your investment, if only for a single viewing.  Having seen it, I can add that it certainly helps if you're a fan of these human-looking-android style stories; it may not have all of the visual bells and whistles you get with big budget productions, but on ideas alone?  This one definitely had its cybernetic heart in the right place ...

... or did it?

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

I don't often toot my own horn, folks, but -- when it comes to remakes and/or retreads -- I am not like most who write about film.

Generally speaking, I welcome them, and I think it's entirely natural for storytellers to want to build on an established legacy in a way that enhances the original while perhaps taking the property in new directions.  Add some flavor to the universe.  Give audiences a little something extra to both look at and think about.  My central requirements for a reboot is that -- minimally -- you have to have something compelling to enrich this cinematized reality: otherwise, it's going to ultimately feel like a cheap imitation.

Alas, that's exactly what RoboCop (2014 version) felt like: a cheap imitation.

Director Jose Padilha's incarnation of the crime-fighting cyborg really only enhanced the effects, maybe even streamlined the action with some newfangled camera trickery, and those two elements alone proved that the filmmakers and his creative crew failed to understand the charm of the original.  Yes, yes, yes: I get that they kept the kinda/sorta sardonic wit -- those moments of cultural parody that propelled so much of this world's humor -- but to do so they brought in Hollywood's biggest foul-mouth with Samuel L. Jackson (no offense, Sam), and again it just felt like it all was produced with the attitude of "we saw what you did, director Paul Verhoeven, and we can do it better."

Well?  You didn't, Jose.

And I say all of this with the full confession that I so very much love the work of Joel Kinnaman.  He's a fabulous talent -- genre projects included -- and I've no problem accepting him in the role of the central figure here.  I don't have any issues with his work in bringing Alex Murphy back to the screen.  I do think it's sad that he was pretty much saddled with an inferior script -- one that essentially tried to rehash far too many elements of the original to give him anything fresh, new, and different to do with the character -- but at the end of the day (or the end of the shoot) it is what it is.

​So ... once more ... just to clarify ... I didn't hate the film ... I generally speaking don't hate reboots ... I just saw this one as entirely unnecessary because it failed to try something authentically its own ... and flicks like that are always destined to wind up inferior.  Great effects and great post-production are all well and good ... but if you're not bringing a new idea?  Then I'm perfectly content to stick with the first and best incarnation of the cop from Old Detroit.

Here's the plot summary as provided by our friends at IMDB.com:

"In 2028 Detroit, when Alex Murphy, a loving husband, father and good cop, is critically injured in the line of duty, the multinational conglomerate OmniCorp sees their chance for a part-man, part-robot police officer."

As I always say, some of these announcements naturally hurt more than others.

I know that sentiment may offend some -- as the loss of every man (and woman) is tragic -- but the truth is we come to know some of these folks more than others.  Not every actor or actress gets the opportunities to play so many great characters in genre entertainment, and not every one of them takes the time to react with fandom the way some do.  Many do seek to live private lives -- opting out of social media entirely -- but Annie Wersching did put herself out there on Twitter.  I know this because I was tickled pink the day she liked a humble Tweet of mine.  She did, however, choose to live out her cancer diagnosis in private, I've read, and IMDB.com suggests that she made that choice in order to preserve the chance to continue working.

Leaving behind a resume of just under fifty different screen projects, Wersching got her small screen debut in an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise, playing the character of 'Liana' in an hour titled "Oasis."  But it wasn't all that long after that she really caught my eye, turning up in the role of 'Renee Walker' aboard one of the most incredible, adrenaline-fueled shows of the era, Fox TV's 24.  In between, she made stops in such properties as Birds Of Prey, Angel, Charmed, Supernatural, Journeyman, No Ordinary Family, Touch, Revolution, The Last Of Us (video game), Intelligence, Extant, The Vampire Diaries, Timeless, Marvel's Runaways, and the oft-maligned Star Trek:Picard ... where she brought to life no less than the Borg Queen for the streaming entity.

To her credit, Wersching and the cast of The Last Of Us won the coveted trophy for 'Best Vocal Ensemble in a Video Game' from the 2014 Behind The Voice Actors Awards.

Prayers are extended to the family, friends, and fans of Ms. Wersching.  May she rest in peace.

​-- EZ

Here's the thing about Jupiter Ascending ... and feel free to say I'm wrong at any point ...

In fairness, I haven't seen enough of it to analyze it the way I should.  When this one was widely panned in its theatrical run, I opted to wait until it came on cable to watch it; and the few times I tried to get through it -- for whatever reason -- it just couldn't keep my interest, so I gave up on it.  (Yes, yes, yes: it's one of the films on my Bucket List, so -- life permitting -- I will get around to it and no doubt have something fully to say about it.)  Mila Kunis -- in particular -- felt a bit of a miscast to me, and I wasn't quite sure of what all was going on with Channing Tatum's character, and I'll simply leave it at the point of saying it probably isn't/wasn't a film for me.  That could change -- should I take it all in in it's infinite glory -- but perhaps at that time I felt like its visuals were more about spectacle than they were substance.

But I have followed to film -- to a lesser degree -- only because I've often that the Wachowskis -- much like M. Night Shyamalan -- are a phenomenon unto themselves.  Given their somewhat financially underperformance for studios following in the wake of The Matrix franchise, I've always been at a loss to understand how they -- like Shyamalan, again -- keep getting work!  And ... not cheap work!  But high paying gigs with some pretty incredible budgets!  Has Hollywood learned nothing from throwing money away on these vanity projects?  Or are the studio suits still hedging their bets, hoping against hope that they'll produce something that truly redefines cinema as The Matrix did?

I will say that -- even though it was a critical and commercial failure -- I had an awful lot of fun with their big screen adaptation of Speed Racer (2008).  I vaguely recall writing somewheres back in its day that -- were I a young one, much like the age in which I first discovered the immortal Star Wars -- Speed Racer might've been the kind of film that truly turned me on to visual storytelling.  I'm not even remotely suggesting that these two pictures should be thought of and/or dissected in the same breath; I'm just saying that Racer had the kind of frenetic energy that could've inspired a trend of young filmmakers to pick up their cameras and try to do something in that same mileau.

But I digress ... as this is supposed to be about Jupiter Ascending ...

Not all that long ago, I recall reading something that Kunis said in an interview.  She was asked something to the effect of how/why Ascending failed to 'ascend,' as it were; and I thought her response kinda/sorta interesting as well as kinda/sorta stupid.  I Googled and can't find the piece now, but -- entirely from memory I'm going now -- the actress suggested that she knew the flick would be a failure when -- in pre-production -- the studio came in and slashed the budget in half.  In a general sense, that's a sentiment I think many of us -- even those not in the entertainment business -- can understand and appreciate ... but for perspective's sake what's missing here is that the Wachowskis were still given anywhere between $170 million to $216 million (it's reported differently across the Information Superhighway) ... and, think what you may, that's still an incredible amount of money!  Heck, they shot The Matrix (and revolutionized moviemaking, I might add) on a fraction of that!

​Alas, only in Hollywood can the 'brightest among us' continue to insist that only by spending -- ahem -- potentially $400 million dollars can a cast and crew produce a compelling and successful space saga!

So I won't throw any more barbs at Ascending ... not today, anyway.  As I said, I really need to digest all of it.  I just think, sometimes, projects are destined to fail because there's no there there, and maybe that's why it missed its mark ultimately.

Here's the plot summary as provided by IMDB.com:

"Jupiter Jones was born under a night sky, with signs predicting that she was destined for great things. Now grown, Jupiter dreams of the stars but wakes up to the cold reality of a job cleaning other people's houses and an endless run of bad breaks. Only when Caine Wise, a genetically engineered ex-military hunter, arrives on Earth to track her down does Jupiter begin to glimpse the fate that has been waiting for her all along - her genetic signature marks her as next in line for an extraordinary inheritance that could alter the balance of the cosmos."

Furthermore, it's often been said that one truly grasps where one stands in life when you can examine who's talking about you.  (I think it's an old wives' tale, adage, or refrain.)  So in that respect?  Jupiter Ascending garnered the attention of GALECA: The Society Of LGBTQ Entertainment Critics.  (Heck, I didn't even know there was such a thing!)  In 2016, they nominated the film in their annual awards recognition series in the category of 'Campy Flick Of The Year.'

Maybe that was my take with what little of it I watched.  Too campy?

Don't worry.  I'll eventually know for certain.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

​-- EZ

What does it take to scare people?
 
It’s a question at the heart of any good horror film, much less a great one.  First, there has to be some kind of frightening premise, and what’s more frightening that to see people essentially void of any trace of humanity?  Sure, there’s the mechanization of men and women – think of it as the ‘Borgification’ of mankind (if Trekkers, Trekkies, and general Trek enthusiasts will pardon the usage) – but it’s the gradually blending of man and machine that’s much scarier (in most cases) than the finished product.  For my tastes, the more flesh, the better … that’s because human flesh always serves to remind me that I’m watching what was a former human being now turned into something else … something bizarre … something decidedly unlike me … and that’s what instills true horror.
 
In the past two decades, one of the more effective diversions within all of filmdom – especially where horror films are concerned – has been the phenomenon of the ‘found footage’ film.  It essentially started with The Blair Witch Project, and it’s found a few interesting riffs or variations … but none might be so inspired, so brazen, and so zany as what director Richard Raaphorst has done with a script (in part) of his own invention, Frankenstein’s Army.
 
And what an invention it is!
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and characters.  If you’re the kind of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last three paragraphs for my final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
Near the end of World War II, a crack squad of Soviet soldiers are making their way across occupied territory on a secret mission to locate a deranged Nazi scientist – Dr. Frankenstein (intended to be the son of the one featured in the original Frankenstein) – who’s known to be secretly conducting some of the most bizarre genetic experiments ever conceived.
 
And, seriously, that’s probably all you need to know going into Frankenstein’s Army, a variation on the ‘found footage’ format film as our lead character/narrator is fundamentally tasked with capturing their mission on tape of the era.  In fact, one could argue that knowing only this tiny fragment of what the film is about could conceivably be too much; part war-time road trip but equal part war-torn mind trip, ARMY is a balls-to-the-wall delight in all things bizarre.
​

Sure, one would be hard-pressed to warn the uninitiated that this is destined to be a cult film.  It certainly has all of the makings, but first and foremost is the consideration that you seriously do not want to think too hard about Army.  When you do, yes, much of it comes crashing apart.  Like the thrill-house fun-ride, Army is about ‘the experience.’  When you think about it too deeply, you realize it couldn’t-wouldn’t-shouldn’t work in any probable fashion, but for the purposes of a cult flick, it works exactly the way it was probably always intended.
 
I’ll admit that the first twenty minutes of this (or so) was a bit of a slog, but I’d be hard-pressed to figure out where and what to cut because, as it stands, Army plays out as a lean, mean less-than-90 minutes carnival ride.  Like most other cult films, I’d want to leave it just as it is; otherwise, losing the slow parts would mean having a theatrical experience running at about one hour, and that would no doubt reduce its effectiveness.
 
Frankenstein’s Army (2013) is produced by Dark Sky Films, Pellicola Films, and XYZ Films.  DVD distribution is being handled through MPI Media Group.  As for the technical specifications, the film looks and sounds about as solid as one would expect from a World War II era ‘found footage’ flick would be, so you can expect a reasonable but artistic amount of faulty images and soundtracking – rest assured, it’s all a part of the package.  Lastly, there’s a wonderful little ‘making of’ short and several creature highlights that emphasize how deeply these artisans involved with the project truly love the art of filmmaking.  Enjoy.
 
Highly Recommended.
 
Frankenstein’s Army is probably destined to be a cult classic someday, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.  There’s so much going for it in the crazy, zany department that I’d imagine an entire school of film-nerds will find plenty to love about it.  It’s a kinda/sorta mash-up of so many fringe cinematic styles, all of which are captured in the ‘found footage’ style, making it feel very much like a “Wartime Home Videos of the Damned.”  Part punk, part splatter, part horror, part nihilistic nightmare, this was a macabre road trip I had no problem making.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MPI Media Group provided me with a DVD copy of Frankenstein’s Army by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review.

​-- EZ

I’ve often said that the true beauty of watching and researching as many films as I do is that I’ll always run across something that somehow has entirely escaped my notice.
 
Granted, when we’re dealing with domestic releases that isn’t all that common these days.  Having seen so many – having read about so many – from the big tentpole releases to some small independent pictures here and there – I’ve stumbled across a great many projects that I never heard about.  When appropriate, I try to add them to the pages of SciFiHistory.Net; if I don’t have the time immediately, then I add it to the growing list of citations I can only hope (at this point) to get to in a single lifetime.  An even greater joy is when I fall face first into an older picture that involves some big name talent whose participation likely made it a better and more memorable outing than had they sat this one out, and those – my friends – are very rare, indeed.
 
But … I’m here to let you know that I’ve found another one!
 
The Vagrant (1992) apparently came and went fairly quickly from theaters back in its day; and – after digesting it completely – it ain’t all that hard to see why.  Part Horror and part Black Comedy, its various pieces – including performances from such notables as the late Bill Paxton, Colleen Camp, and national treasures like Marshall Bell and Michael Ironside – are occasionally a bit over-the-top, maybe even a bit grotesque for the sake of gratuitousness.  I know director Chris Walas’ name more for his work in the field of Special Effects than I do directing, and I’m not sure this story (as penned by Richard Jefferies) could’ve worked all that differently in the hands of another storyteller.  All-in-all, it’s a bit uneven, a bit undercooked, maybe even a bit unclear …
 
… and yet that just might be the source of its unmistakably charm.  It definitely has ‘cult’ written all over it, and I’d give it a strong thumbs up if only for audiences who like that kind of thing.
 
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“A businessman buys a house, but he has a hard time trying to get rid of its previous tenant, a dirty bum.”
​

Regular readers of this space know all-too-well that I refrain from spoiling any film – new or old – especially when it involves details I think best kept locked up until discovered on their own.  That said, I’m still going to confess that IMDB.com’s plot summary isn’t entirely accurate.  It has the benefit of being brief and perhaps setting up the circumstances that ultimately await young and earnest Graham Krakowski (played winningly here by Paxton), but it’s still just a bit misleading … for the right purposes.
 
In the hands of an everyman like Paxton, Krakowski is your typical young urban professional (think ‘yuppie,’ for those of you who know the term).  Who’s doing everything he can smartly to get ahead at work – garnering praise from the ‘corner office’ but not at the risk of being perceived as butt-kissing – and in his private life.  Because he’s reached the point in his personal development that purchasing a house is the smart thing to do, he’s put in the research and believes he’s found a place that might usher in the next chapter in his existence.  Living his days in the proper step-by-step formula, Graham is the perennial white-collar worker aiming at the right choices.
 
Therein lies the beauty of The Vagrant’s simple, underlying theme: life rarely goes as planned.
 
Something invariably throws the proverbial monkey wrench into the mix, and it’s here that The Vagrant excels.  It introduces Krakowski to the absolute antithesis of his existence: a homeless man (who is – for all intents and purposes – best known as ‘The Vagrant’ abiding by my spoiler rules) has not only taken up residence in the vacant lot across the street from Graham’s dream house but also he can seemingly find his way inside the place whenever he chooses.  Try as he might to keep the unwashed, unclean, and unkempt itinerant out and away from his personal business, Krakowski fails at every opportunity, so much so that one might begin to suspect magic – if not downright undiagnosed psychosis – might be afoot.
 
In fact, Jefferies’ script deliberately toys with Krakowski’s increasingly fragile psyche up and to the point wherein audiences just might begin questioning if the lines of reality have blurred.  We learn that Graham sleepwalks on occasion, and it starts to look as if he himself might be his own worst enemy in these unintended nocturnal episodes.  Yet because The Vagrant really is the stuff of living nightmares we’re eventually brought back to the point that these things taking place are very real, potentially very deadly, and inevitably requiring extraordinary solutions.
 
As for the cast?
​

As mentioned, the reliable Paxton is just as reliable as he’s ever been.  He carries much of this project and its outcome on his shoulders, but he’s surrounded by men and women who capably show up and turn in some respectable moments each.  Bell – as the Vagrant – is a visual nightmare; his scarred face, milky eye, and blackened teeth definitely go the distance to creating something frightening enough to last memorably in those who discover this little gem.  Ironside – a genre mainstay for as long as I can recall – never quite settles in here as comfortably as I would’ve liked, and that might be because his character veers toward cartoonish at time: a veteran cop whose done and seen it all, he makes a dark turn in the last reel that felt more like a screenwriter’s invention than it did a natural character evolution.  Colleen Camp has possibly stolen as many scenes as she’s ever been in; here – as the hyper-sexed real estate agent who takes a shining to Krakowski – it would’ve been nice to see her a bit more as I think her zaniness worked precisely as intended.  Lastly, the fetching Mitzi Kapture (oh, where oh where have you gone?) gets high marks as Graham’s comely girlfriend who tries against hope to ground the young professional in domestic bliss but yet can’t quite come to terms with his precarious personality.
 
Reflecting upon the journey, I think that The Vagrant’s subversiveness probably was found a bit too risky to put this thing out with a wide theatrical release.  As I said above, it’s one of those rare flicks that isn’t quite specific enough grounded in any one genre, choosing instead of cross over – perhaps even back-and-forth – with traditional Horror, conventional then dark Comedy, as well as the mainstream urban thriller.  Because it never commits to any one theme, it likely confused studio suits in much the same way Tremors (1990) had done just a few years before.  Saddled with this thematic inconsistency, The Vagrant only found extremely limited airings, eventually being dumped into the retail/rental market where it finally found an audience.  That’s a shame because I’d argue it deserved better: it definitely deserves to be seen, though I think only those who gravitate toward cult flicks might inevitably embrace it as the diamond-in-the-rough that it remains.
 
Like every good Horror concept, the film does have a very solid twist – a final surprise – withheld until the final reel, and that’s one thing that I think was handled intelligently enough to encourage folks to give it a single viewing.  It may not be as grand or as frightening as it was intended, but it definitely gives one something to mull over the next time you see that scruffy fellow standing on the corner with a sign asking you for your spare change.  Who is that fellow?  What might his true backstory be?  Why could avoiding his glance – why might not giving him a buck – be the worst choice you ever made?  As is the case with living life unbridled, you never truly know … do you?
​
Do you?
​

The Vagrant (1992) was produced by Brooksfilms and Canal+.  DVD distribution (for this particular release) is being coordinated via the reliable people at Arrow Films.  As for the technical specifications?  Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought the sights and sounds from start-to-finish were quite good, even though there were a few sequences of grain likely attributed more to flaws missed while in production.  Lastly, if you’re looking for special features?  I was provided a screener copy, so I’m going (in part) from the publicity materials provided that say this was a brand-new 2K restoration along with some newly-produced cast and crew interviews (Bell, Ironside, Camp, and Walas are all here, and their recollections are solid).  Lastly, the materials claim first pressings also receive a collector’s booklet with new artwork and essays; but as I wasn’t provided those I can’t speak to their efficacy.
 
Recommended … but only truly if you’re a purveyor of cult flicks, obscure Horror releases, and/or oddball black comedies.

​I think – with a film like The Vagrant – it goes without saying that the motion picture won’t be for everyone.  Its comic moments are a bit fleeting at times, occasionally played a bit over-the-top, and its Horror elements are likely too few and far between to truly light a fire in that genre’s most ardent fans.  I suspect this was the type of project that no one quite knew what to do with once completed, and this certainty probably left it with the scant theatrical airings it was afforded.  As can happen over time, home video releases likely gave it new life, as renters are far more forgiving with features that lean toward the fringes and forgotten films.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Arrow Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray screener/copy of The Vagrant by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ